• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

So, does the media actually cover Obama more?

MobBoss

Off-Topic Overlord
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
46,853
Location
In Perpetual Motion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503100.html?sub=AR

Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.

In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates' agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.

This dovetails with Obama's dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it's 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9.

This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.

Obama's dominance on Page 1 is partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton and his trip overseas in July. The coverage of June 4, 5, 6 and 7 led to six Page 1 stories in The Post, including Obama's nomination victory, his strategy, elation among African Americans over the historic nature of his win and his fundraising advantage. Then he made an appearance at Nissan Pavilion with Virginia's Gov. Timothy Kaine and Sen. James Webb, and it became a local Page 1 story. During those few days, there was one Page 1 reference to an inside-page story about McCain going after Clinton's disgruntled supporters.

When Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe, the coverage dwarfed that of McCain -- six Page 1 stories from July 19 to July 27, plus an earlier front-page story announcing the trip. McCain managed one Page 1 story and one Page 1 reference; the July 25 story said he might pick a vice presidential candidate soon, but that didn't happen. While there was no front-page story about Obama on July 25, it seemed wrong not to count that day because a photo of him in Berlin dominated the front page. I also counted a story about a Post-ABC News poll concerning racism and its potential impact on the election; 3 in 10 of those polled acknowledged racial bias.

Not all Page 1 coverage has been favorable. Obama was hit right away with two Page 1 stories about Washington insider James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO, who was criticized for mortgage deals and then withdrew from vetting Obama's potential running mates. A story about Obama's former Chicago church reminded readers of the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. There were also stories with a favorable cast -- about his patriotism, his first appearance with Clinton and the coverage from his foreign trip.

McCain's Page 1 stories were a mix -- a story about the flap over former senator Phil Gramm's comment about a "nation of whiners" over the economy and a story about conservatives wanting to battle McCain on the party platform. But there also were stories about plans to make the federal government more environmentally responsible and McCain's proposal for offshore drilling.

The single most revealing story about McCain -- and one of the best Post stories on either candidate -- was a top-of-the-front-page look at McCain's intellect. The story, by veteran reporter and editor Robert G. Kaiser, was the kind of analysis that tells readers something they didn't know. It was neither positive nor negative, just revealing and insightful.

Another favorite was by Business reporter Lori Montgomery on how both candidates will have trouble lowering the deficit with their spending plans. A Style & Arts change of pace was movie critic Stephen Hunter's look at McCain and Obama as film icons-- McCain as John Wayne and Obama as Will Smith.

Page 1 coverage isn't all that counts, but it is the most visible. Certainly there were many stories on the Politics page and elsewhere in the paper. (I'm not counting opinion columns.) The Trail, The Post's politics blog, had dozens of short items about both candidates, all interesting to political junkies. Post inside coverage has been a mix of horse-race coverage -- stories about endorsements, advisers, who can win where -- and issues stories.

Style stories have dealt with the Internet, voters and volunteers, and the cultural aspects of the campaigns. Cindy McCain was featured in a big Style spread and Michelle Obama in a Metro story about her recent visit to Virginia.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.

"The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time."

Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.

Great article and it goes a long way to pointing out what many of us had indeed already seen as obvious. The media loves Obama.

Now, to what extent do you think this had influenced the election thus far? And if media outlets do indeed attempt to rectify the matter and give both candidates equal mention, what will this mean to the campaigns?

By all means, discuss.
 
You're making more threads about Obama than McCain.
 
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

Don't let that ruin your point.
 
They do cover him more, but they cover McCain more positively and ignore his many gaffs. C'mon, the media goes so far as to say "the media is biased toward Obama."
 
But not nearly as many as sims does about McCain. I gotta catch up.
So, have I gone a long way to pointing out what many of us had indeed already seen as obvious: MobBoss loves Obama?
 
They do because a young energetic ,Black man with fluency Obama is more interesting than an Old man with Alzheimer .

If you ask my opinion both will screw the world when elected and both are idiots.
 
So, have I gone a long way to pointing out what many of us had indeed already seen as obvious: MobBoss loves Obama?

But not nearly as much some love McCain around here tho.

But enough trolling there Erik...do you have any legit comments about the article?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503100.html?sub=AR

Now, to what extent do you think this had influenced the election thus far? And if media outlets do indeed attempt to rectify the matter and give both candidates equal mention, what will this mean to the campaigns?

By all means, discuss.

1. I think it has quite a bit effected the election. However, a good deal of it could be said to be McCain's fault because he is rather uninspiring. Being bland like he is doesn't and won't help because it won't really attract much attention.

Unlike Obama who is very charismatic and that will draw people and ultimately more attention to him. Obama has an element of freshness and flavor that McCain may seem to lack in the eyes of the public.

It's kind of like having a comparison to MCL (restaurant frequented by the elderly) which is bland and lacks flavor, to let's say chipolte where their food has a lot of flavor and diverse. In that case it would be quite obvious that if the food critics where to rate the two places that most of the attention would be put on Chipolte. The reason being there is a actual substance and taste to it unlike a great deal of the food served at MCL.

2. The media could do all it wants but McCain would have to in the end change his mentality and make himself have more appeal. His current way of doing things is rather bland which won't really get you much attention.
 
Great article and it goes a long way to pointing out what many of us had indeed already seen as obvious. The media loves Obama.

I don't think the article suggests that at all. Howell pointed out that there were more stories on Obama than McCain. It doesn't say anything at all about the character of the coverage, as augurey has already pointed out.

Cleo
 
Now, to what extent do you think this had influenced the election thus far? And if media outlets do indeed attempt to rectify the matter and give both candidates equal mention, what will this mean to the campaigns?
I think it would hurt McCain to get more coverage. He has been lucky that the media loves to focus on Obama's negatives while giving the old Maverick a pass.

Anyway, based on your Obama-to-McCain thread and post ratio, am I to assume that you are even more in love with Obama than the so-called liberal media?
 
But shouldnt media outlets attempt to give equal coverage; regardless of the reasons given here?

And I just dont buy the 'charisma' angle at all. If our media is so biased as to be that influenced then there is no hope for us at all.
 
Whether good or bad, more stories on Obama may not have a positive impact and could very well have a negative impact instead. If the coverage consists of repeating the various talking points against Obama. Whether attempting to reinforce them or arguing against them, repeating them often only ties them to Obama in the voter's minds.

See Ayatollah's latest thread.
 
But shouldnt media outlets attempt to give equal coverage; regardless of the reasons given here?

No. We have a free press, not a communist state. The freedom of the press granted by our founding fathers was based on the idea that liberty thrives when opinions clash - media didn't strive for "equal coverage" back in 1788, and they shouldn't now.

There's a far more significant bias than the US left/right dichotomy anyway, and that's the fact that there's a western bias. So unless you plan to have "equal coverage" of the PRC/Russian point of view on things, don't talk about equal coverage.
 
I don't think the amount of coverage needs to be equal, but it should be objective, which seems to be a pipedream these days.

It is in McCain's favor for the election to be about Obama. The media are actually helping McCain, which is ok with me.
 
But shouldnt media outlets attempt to give equal coverage; regardless of the reasons given here?
Nope - it is up to the candidate to do something newsworthy. Going to the Sausage Haus while your opponent is on a high profile international tour just isn't going to cut it if you want equal coverage.
 
I don't think the amount of coverage needs to be equal, but it should be objective, which seems to be a pipedream these days.
What's objective is not what a person with a point of view believes is "objective." Besides, what the media cares about, like any other good company, is money - thus they focus on news that is interesting, e.g. sensationalism. As I said in another thread, the media is biased towards the media.

It is in McCain's favor for the election to be about Obama. The media are actually helping McCain, which is ok with me.
The election last time was about Bush... That didn't exactly help Kerry.
 
But not nearly as much some love McCain around here tho.

But enough trolling there Erik...do you have any legit comments about the article?
"Trolling"?
You attempted to draw an unsupported conclusion from the article. I applied your own leaps of logic to your own actions and showed your inferences to be inconsistent with your positions.

Since the article isn't particularly interesting, (Man wanting change gets more coverage than man associated with establishment, guy with radical pastor gets more coverage than guy with boring pastor, yadda yadda big surprise) and doesn't convey any qualitatively new information, I preferred to focus on fighting the spread of disinformation, whether intentional or not.
 
But shouldnt media outlets attempt to give equal coverage; regardless of the reasons given here?

No. As keshik explained, the media should give objective coverage, not strive to include exactly 50% of stories about one candidate and 50% of stories about the other.

Cleo
 
Top Bottom